How Frisch Saw in the 1960s the Contribution of Economists to Development Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivations and Limitations Two considerations motivate this essay: First, the author may have testimony to give about Ragnar Frisch. Second, the history of economic ideas should analyze those views about planning that were influential during the third quarter of this century, particularly in Western Europe. During the 1950s and early 1960s, European economists involved in setting up national accounts and macroeconomic programming often met for a week or so, in conditions very different from those prevailing in the large, short gatherings now common for international scientific interchange. A group of some 30 participants would discuss at length issues raised by their work. The younger ones would receive advice from a few dominant personalities, who would also at times embark on lengthy debates with each other. The atmosphere was friendly and open. Ragnar Frisch was almost always present at the many such meetings I went to during that period; he, of course, marked them by his interventions. After a while I thought I could fairly well predict some of his comments, even some with which I disagreed. But other comments were truly unpredictable and surprising. The differences in approach and temper between Frisch and such people as Richard Stone, Jan Tinbergen, or Herman World were also worth noting. Because I am one of the few living non-Norwegian economists who had such an acquaintance with Frisch, I feel a duty to provide whatever information I can regarding that extraordinary man.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".